Shipbucket

I'm quitting this debate, since the tone appears to become more and more un-civil. I have given my opinion, right or wrong, and i stand by it.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Guys...calm down...
Correct or not for the RHN, i would like to stop this argument!
I will not change the idea for this ship, it would be usefull for other navies as well...
I would love to hear more ideas & corrections on this design, for better performance!

Interesting design...a German-style funnel with a Richelieu-esque bridge structure, and more nods to the latter class by having all the main guns forward. I like it!

And don't worry about having aircraft aboard; the USN had aircraft aboard the Alaskas, which were completed about the same time.

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Well, the USN operated floatplanes until 1949 (I think that was the cutoff). It's not at all unreasonable for this ship to have them... floatplane operation was not limited to just the USN anyway.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

So if floatplanes it is, then the next issue would be how many? I noticed mentioning only "many" but no clear indication wheter this is 3 or 6...
Have you considered giving it more proper semi-floatplane carrier shape by trying something similar in the stern as in Japanese Tone class?

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Leading on from the above if that were to happen could you not locate aviation facilities aft and then have move the majority of the secondary armament amidships, say two turrets where the catapult is now either side and a mount forward and one aft to provide better all round coverage.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

From what I've seen of US operations, cruisers tended to operate between two and four floatplanes apiece. I think it sometimes depended on whether or not the ship in question had a hanger (most USN cruisers had hanger space for two floatplanes), and another plane or two could be stowed on deck or on the catapult ready to go.

One of the issues with floatplanes - why they were so quickly replaced by helicopters - is that the mothership becomes more vulnerable during recovery. In order to recover a plane, you need to steam no more than ten knots or less, making your vessel a juicy target for a lurking submarine. Helicopters can be brought aboard in heavier seas and at greater speeds. That said, I agree that the use of floatplanes on this vessel is a good choice. The USN, even once they had workable radar used by well-trained crews, was able to substantially raise their gunfire accuracy through liaison with their embarked floatplanes - I've seen some claims that cruisers and battlewagons tripled their accuracy when working in conjunction with a floatplane, and could score hits on maneuvering targets that a firing battleship couldn't even actually see. The pilot+observer and the fire control coordinators of the ships had to be very well-drilled in order to work together in a tactical environment, particularly as on numerous occasions in WWII, English-speaking German and Japanese radio operators would listen in on the radio nets and often try to insert their own instructions. When both the ship's radioman and the aerial observer recognized each other's voices and way of speaking, it was much more difficult for enemies to try to fool the operators. When the US matched up land-based or carrier-based observers with a bombardment ship, good results could still be obtained - but they were generally a bit inferior to the teams which had spent weeks, months, or occasionally years training together.

Very interesting design.
And interesting discussion. I agree with suggestion about moving aviation facilities aft.

The original plan was to place the hangar, catapults & recovery crane aftwards as you can see bellow

then i change my mind and i supposed that if placing all secondary armament aft would give better
space utilization and be placed more heavy AA guns, than to be amidships...ofcourse the forward
part of the ship is uncoverd by heavy AA guns & and i am working on it in order to find a solution to put at list 2-3
turretsof 4'' aft of second tower of 14''.

As for the number of the Floatplanes i thing that could be abt 8-10...if you take in mind that in the hungar
could be stored at list 4-6 planes and on deck 2 as well as on the catapults 2 ready for use!
I suppose that a coplement of 2 fighters, 4-6 Bombers(or Torpado Planes) & 1 Scout will be enough.
I don't know if catapult of the era will be capable to give enough ejection power for the weight of a bomber!!!

Here is the progress of the design...


As for the name ... Alexander the Great is already taken by the Heavy Cruisers i have already post here.
Acropolis is not an appropriate name for the Greek standarts (usually such names are for Civilian ships).
Maybe the name "Ikarus" (the first man which ever flyed) is ok...and for the second and last ship of the class
"Daedalus" (the father of Ikarus) ...
An other name i keep in mind is of the last Emperor of Byzantium, Aftokrator Konstantinos IB' (Emperor Konstantinos IB')

(Stepping in again...just briefly, though!) "Aftokrator Konstantinos IA" hhmmm...I've never heard anyone, including native speaking Greeks using the less elevated title of Autocrator (Aftokrator) in stead of the title the Byzantines themselves used "Basileus" (Vasilefs). Also, in strict adherence with the tradition, I believe the full name would then be "Vasilefs Konstantinos IA Dragases Palaiologos (Κωνσταντῖνος ΙΑ' Δραγάσης Παλαιολόγος); which, of course colloquially could be shortened to just "Konstantinos XI".

Since I'm a great romanticist and I've studied extensively the Palailogid period of the Byzantine history, as well as the largely forgotten, but oh so shimmering "Empire" of Trebizond, I find your suggestion enticing. However, I still think you ought to consider imperial names more closely associated with the Byzantine Golden Era of Basil I (Βασίλειος Α΄ ο Μακεδών), Romanus I Lekapenus (Ρωμανός Α΄ Λεκαπηνός), Nicephorus II Focas (Νικηφόρος Β΄ Φωκάς), or John I Tzimiskes (Iωάννης Α΄ Κουρκούας ο Τσιμισκής).

But, this is just my 2 cents in the pot...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen